America's Terminal Cancer: Scumbags in Black Robes

There are lots of reasons why nations fail. America's Achilles heel is the guaranteed tenure of rotten-to-the-core Supreme Court justices.

Once again, the US Constitution is on life support. This time the president is not Abraham Lincoln, and it will not survive. The Constitution is being destroyed by a Supreme Court majority that is arguably the most corrupt in our history.

For the first time in history, 5 members have told a despicable and demonstrable lie to defend what may be the most damaging decision to the democracy.

Members of the Supreme Court are openly partial to corporations and openly lobby for them. They are partisan and dismissive of both conflicts of interest and criticisms of their lack of ethics. They lie to support their decisions.

Alito, has been called out for repeatedly participating in Republican fund raising events while refusing to explain to reporters why he was violating the Court's Code of Conduct. ["Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito Dismisses His Profligate Right-Wing Fundraising As ‘Not Important'"Lee Fang on Nov 10, 2010 Think Progress]

On the eve of the Bush-Gore election, Sandra Day O'Connor made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her.

Clarence Thomas' wife was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees the same time as her husband was deciding whether Bush would become the next President.

Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court. The head of the firm was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.

After the Florida election case, the majority protected themselves from their unprecedented conduct, when - for the first time in Supreme Court history - they limited that decision to a single case. "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."

Ten years later, the SCOTUS intentionally turned a minor case dealing with the legality of advertising a political film during television broadcasts into the infamous "Citizens United".

In the two years that followed Citizens United, the country has been flooded with evidence of the validity of Justice Stevens' original condemnation of the majority of the Supreme Court.

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Again, in June of 2012, a narrowly divided Supreme Court reaffirmed its controversial 2010 decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on elections. It ruled that a state court was wrong to uphold Montana's century-old ban on political spending by businesses. The 5 to 4 decision, two paragraphs issued without hearings or debate, further inflamed the argument over the role of big money in politics.

This time, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a short dissent for the minority,

"Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so."

Including House and Senate races, Bill Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, estimates that as much as $8 billion will be spent on the 2012 elections. There are approximately 80,000 local, state and national elections each year in the US [www.historylearningsite.co.uk America and Elections]

Two years and about 160,000 elections after Citizens United, five openly partisan, ethics-deficient, corporate-loving, Supreme Court justices have reasserted the claim that corporate expenditures in politics do not "appear" to corrupt.

With hundreds of millions of dollars unaccounted for, 160,000 chances to misuse them and more than 50 million Americans exposed to the information one way or another, what jackass on this planet could believe that 5 not-so-supreme justices could possibly have any evidence for the claim that no one has experienced "the appearance of corruption?"

Citizens United was an indefensible "supposition" that the ruling would not lead to" corruption or the appearance of corruption."

There is a monumental difference between the Montana decision and the Citizens United decision. The Court's Montana majority decision includes the two year interim after Citizen United and before the Montana decision, and consequently is not a "supposition," but a statement about existing facts.

It is demonstrably, a blatant lie. A Google search using "corruption caused by independent expenditures on elections" yields more than 10 million hits showing that a majority of the nation believes that independent expenditures have resulted in widespread corruption.

Even a judicial halfwit must recognize that this is overwhelming evidence of the "appearance of corruption." The Montana decision is more important than Citizens United. It was no longer a matter of "Judicial Supposition." It is a crucial example of the arrogant indifference of the majority of the Court to being exposed as liars in repeating their "no appearance" claim.

In actual fact, the majority of people surveyed nationally believe that Citizens United caused corruption.

Prior to the Montana decision, an April, 2012, survey by the Brennan Center [Brennan Center for Justice, Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy: A National Survey of Americans' Attitudes about the Influence of Super PAC Spending on Government and the Implications for our Democracy], revealed that:

69% believe that "the new rules that let corporations, unions and people give unlimited money to Super PACs will lead to corruption."

68% of all respondents agreed that "a company that spent $100,000 to help elect a member of Congress could successfully pressure him or her to change a vote on a proposed law."

77% agreed that "A member of Congress is more likely to act in the interest of a group that spent millions of dollars to elect him or her than to act in the public interest."

For the first time in this nation's history, a landmark, democracy-destroying Supreme Court decision was defended by an obvious lie.

The destructive interpretations of the 5 majority members of the present court have demeaned the value of the Constitution by making it a personal tool to achieve their ideological ends. It is not likely to survive under this form of continued abuse.

The existence of Democracy is meaningless without the Constitution.

To save the Constitution from being permanently prostituted by corrupt Supreme Court justices, it has to be amended to impose term limits on, and allow impeachment of, an ever-available supply of scumbags in search of black robes.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Donald G. Schweitzer has a PhD in Physical Chemistry, is a retired tenured Senior Scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Chief Advisor to AEC, NRC, DOE, State Dept., the IAEA, and the US Air Force, on all forms of carbon and graphite chemistry, on nuclear and chemical safety, licensing, accident analyses, chemical and nuclear waste isolation and development of advanced fuels and advanced nuclear reactors.

America's Terminal Cancer: Scumbags in Black Robes

There are lots of reasons why nations fail. America's Achilles heel is the guaranteed tenure of rotten-to-the-core Supreme Court justices.

Once again, the US Constitution is on life support. This time the president is not Abraham Lincoln, and it will not survive. The Constitution is being destroyed by a Supreme Court majority that is arguably the most corrupt in our history.

For the first time in history, 5 members have told a despicable and demonstrable lie to defend what may be the most damaging decision to the democracy.

Members of the Supreme Court are openly partial to corporations and openly lobby for them. They are partisan and dismissive of both conflicts of interest and criticisms of their lack of ethics. They lie to support their decisions.

Alito, has been called out for repeatedly participating in Republican fund raising events while refusing to explain to reporters why he was violating the Court's Code of Conduct. ["Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito Dismisses His Profligate Right-Wing Fundraising As ‘Not Important'"Lee Fang on Nov 10, 2010 Think Progress]

On the eve of the Bush-Gore election, Sandra Day O'Connor made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her.

Clarence Thomas' wife was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees the same time as her husband was deciding whether Bush would become the next President.

Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court. The head of the firm was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.

After the Florida election case, the majority protected themselves from their unprecedented conduct, when - for the first time in Supreme Court history - they limited that decision to a single case. "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."

Ten years later, the SCOTUS intentionally turned a minor case dealing with the legality of advertising a political film during television broadcasts into the infamous "Citizens United".

In the two years that followed Citizens United, the country has been flooded with evidence of the validity of Justice Stevens' original condemnation of the majority of the Supreme Court.

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Again, in June of 2012, a narrowly divided Supreme Court reaffirmed its controversial 2010 decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on elections. It ruled that a state court was wrong to uphold Montana's century-old ban on political spending by businesses. The 5 to 4 decision, two paragraphs issued without hearings or debate, further inflamed the argument over the role of big money in politics.

This time, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a short dissent for the minority,

"Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so."

Including House and Senate races, Bill Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, estimates that as much as $8 billion will be spent on the 2012 elections. There are approximately 80,000 local, state and national elections each year in the US [www.historylearningsite.co.uk America and Elections]

Two years and about 160,000 elections after Citizens United, five openly partisan, ethics-deficient, corporate-loving, Supreme Court justices have reasserted the claim that corporate expenditures in politics do not "appear" to corrupt.

With hundreds of millions of dollars unaccounted for, 160,000 chances to misuse them and more than 50 million Americans exposed to the information one way or another, what jackass on this planet could believe that 5 not-so-supreme justices could possibly have any evidence for the claim that no one has experienced "the appearance of corruption?"

Citizens United was an indefensible "supposition" that the ruling would not lead to" corruption or the appearance of corruption."

There is a monumental difference between the Montana decision and the Citizens United decision. The Court's Montana majority decision includes the two year interim after Citizen United and before the Montana decision, and consequently is not a "supposition," but a statement about existing facts.

It is demonstrably, a blatant lie. A Google search using "corruption caused by independent expenditures on elections" yields more than 10 million hits showing that a majority of the nation believes that independent expenditures have resulted in widespread corruption.

Even a judicial halfwit must recognize that this is overwhelming evidence of the "appearance of corruption." The Montana decision is more important than Citizens United. It was no longer a matter of "Judicial Supposition." It is a crucial example of the arrogant indifference of the majority of the Court to being exposed as liars in repeating their "no appearance" claim.

In actual fact, the majority of people surveyed nationally believe that Citizens United caused corruption.

Prior to the Montana decision, an April, 2012, survey by the Brennan Center [Brennan Center for Justice, Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy: A National Survey of Americans' Attitudes about the Influence of Super PAC Spending on Government and the Implications for our Democracy], revealed that:

69% believe that "the new rules that let corporations, unions and people give unlimited money to Super PACs will lead to corruption."

68% of all respondents agreed that "a company that spent $100,000 to help elect a member of Congress could successfully pressure him or her to change a vote on a proposed law."

77% agreed that "A member of Congress is more likely to act in the interest of a group that spent millions of dollars to elect him or her than to act in the public interest."

For the first time in this nation's history, a landmark, democracy-destroying Supreme Court decision was defended by an obvious lie.

The destructive interpretations of the 5 majority members of the present court have demeaned the value of the Constitution by making it a personal tool to achieve their ideological ends. It is not likely to survive under this form of continued abuse.

The existence of Democracy is meaningless without the Constitution.

To save the Constitution from being permanently prostituted by corrupt Supreme Court justices, it has to be amended to impose term limits on, and allow impeachment of, an ever-available supply of scumbags in search of black robes.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Donald G. Schweitzer has a PhD in Physical Chemistry, is a retired tenured Senior Scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Chief Advisor to AEC, NRC, DOE, State Dept., the IAEA, and the US Air Force, on all forms of carbon and graphite chemistry, on nuclear and chemical safety, licensing, accident analyses, chemical and nuclear waste isolation and development of advanced fuels and advanced nuclear reactors.